1 00:00:19,940 --> 00:00:26,920 So I'd like to start out by thanking again. Peter, not just for inviting people, organising and funding. 2 00:00:26,920 --> 00:00:36,800 I'm really sorry. I don't know that I've ever been to one as large as this, which has run as smoothly as this has. 3 00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:43,390 And the quality of the sessions has been wonderful. 4 00:00:43,390 --> 00:00:46,220 Thank you. Thank you very much. 5 00:00:46,220 --> 00:00:55,970 OK, so I taken the topics of the conference mind nature as an opportunity to reflect on Nietzsche's attacks on dual was my nature, 6 00:00:55,970 --> 00:01:02,050 after all, two of the familiar terms in which the traditional dualism has been stated. 7 00:01:02,050 --> 00:01:06,710 And I think every reader of Nietzsche quickly sees that he's a vigorous opponent of such 8 00:01:06,710 --> 00:01:12,950 dualism and that he insists to the country that might be understood as a part of nature. 9 00:01:12,950 --> 00:01:20,900 So he embraces some version of this. This is most vividly expressed in a famous passage from Sabratha Struggle. 10 00:01:20,900 --> 00:01:26,960 But the awakened one, the one who knows, says Body am I through and through. 11 00:01:26,960 --> 00:01:32,510 And nothing besides. And soul is merely a word for something about the body. 12 00:01:32,510 --> 00:01:37,700 By the way, I haven't. There's an end out there which has a kind of outline of a top rhythm. 13 00:01:37,700 --> 00:01:46,730 Some of the quotations I want to show, though, the issue is much more complex and I got more interesting than it might have seen. 14 00:01:46,730 --> 00:01:53,720 I want to show that on the one hand, Nietzsche's attack on dualism carries him very far, much further than we initially expect. 15 00:01:53,720 --> 00:02:01,070 It carries him indeed to a radical feminism that is, however, very hard to square with this other strong commitments. 16 00:02:01,070 --> 00:02:07,970 And so Nietzsche has repeatedly pulled back from this modernism to duellist abuse at seeming odds with it. 17 00:02:07,970 --> 00:02:18,020 This opens up a great tension, an apparent contradiction in his thinking and poses the question what philosophical means he has for addressing it. 18 00:02:18,020 --> 00:02:23,350 This tension is aligned with certain others. It is thought in particular without advising from his perspective, 19 00:02:23,350 --> 00:02:32,450 as I think examining this issue over monism versus dualism throws helpful light on some of these other basic issues as well. 20 00:02:32,450 --> 00:02:37,520 And let me just insert quickly here. This is a new topic for me. 21 00:02:37,520 --> 00:02:43,160 This is a topic on which my thinking has in many ways not quite crystallised yet. 22 00:02:43,160 --> 00:02:53,960 So I hope you'll bear with me for a certain. And I may be shifting and uncertain character in some of what I have to say. 23 00:02:53,960 --> 00:02:59,330 Now, as I said, I think our first reaction is that he rejects dualism altogether. 24 00:02:59,330 --> 00:03:08,090 Let me start with a sketch of some pretty familiar elements of this critique of dualism and of the view nature offers in its place. 25 00:03:08,090 --> 00:03:13,160 Nature doesn't especially identify this dualism with Descartes. But he clearly has InFocus, 26 00:03:13,160 --> 00:03:19,070 I think a view we ourselves call Cartesian distinguishing immaterial mind a thinking 27 00:03:19,070 --> 00:03:27,320 thing from body defined as entirely as extended thinking and extension matter in mind, 28 00:03:27,320 --> 00:03:36,140 are of such utterly different ontological categories that they support completely different sets of properties. 29 00:03:36,140 --> 00:03:44,150 It's nonsense to suppose that mind could have a weight or a shape, or that matter could have feelings or views. 30 00:03:44,150 --> 00:03:49,700 Nietzsche's attack runs mainly against the mind side of this dualism of balance. 31 00:03:49,700 --> 00:03:54,680 So Antichrist 14 says that Descartes boldly viewed animals as machines. 32 00:03:54,680 --> 00:03:58,970 But we go further and view humans as such, too. 33 00:03:58,970 --> 00:04:05,390 We see consciousness as a symptom of, quote, the relative imperfection of the organism. 34 00:04:05,390 --> 00:04:11,990 Pure spirit is a pure stupidity. When we discount the nervous system and the senses, the mortal shroud. 35 00:04:11,990 --> 00:04:18,920 We miscount nothing more. But really, I think nature rejects both sides of the duality. 36 00:04:18,920 --> 00:04:24,170 There's no merely material body anymore than there is an incorporeal mind. 37 00:04:24,170 --> 00:04:30,440 If he absorbs mind and the body, it is into a body with very different properties than Descartes smatter. 38 00:04:30,440 --> 00:04:35,630 Indeed, each argues that Cartesian extension is something we interpret into the world. 39 00:04:35,630 --> 00:04:44,150 It's not real, much less essential. Instead, he thinks a body as essentially a capacity due to this. 40 00:04:44,150 --> 00:04:52,310 Moreover, he crucially thinks that this capacity as intentional in the sense that it means and aims at things. 41 00:04:52,310 --> 00:04:57,680 So body the one substance there is to has as its most important properties, 42 00:04:57,680 --> 00:05:05,420 not extension for weight or shape, but in attending's that Descartes would have restricted to mine. 43 00:05:05,420 --> 00:05:11,990 Thus, feature promotes against that dualism a mind in nature, not a logical bonus. 44 00:05:11,990 --> 00:05:17,360 Ultimately, there is only one kind of entity, one basically of being an entity. 45 00:05:17,360 --> 00:05:22,940 Everything is of the same sort. I'll call this being Monas. 46 00:05:22,940 --> 00:05:28,940 Each associates this ism and many of the related views will examine with Heraclitus. 47 00:05:28,940 --> 00:05:34,340 So from philosophy and the tragic age of the Greeks, each says that keratitis, quote, 48 00:05:34,340 --> 00:05:41,600 denied the duality of totally diverse worlds, a position which Anex demander had been compelled to assume. 49 00:05:41,600 --> 00:05:46,070 He no longer distinguished a physical world from a metaphysical one. 50 00:05:46,070 --> 00:05:52,280 I'll point out these connexions at various points. These connexions to Eric Heigl's at various points as we go. 51 00:05:52,280 --> 00:05:56,300 So there is one kind of entity, and for it each has one term. 52 00:05:56,300 --> 00:06:01,190 He overwhelmingly prefers life. This is his crucial notion. 53 00:06:01,190 --> 00:06:10,100 I think much more important to him, the nature and also more basic and will to power, which is offered as an hypothesis about life. 54 00:06:10,100 --> 00:06:14,640 Accordingly, we can understand life as capacities that aim. 55 00:06:14,640 --> 00:06:21,290 Or mean everything that is according to nature is such a directness. 56 00:06:21,290 --> 00:06:27,230 However, we also know that values are much more important to nature than facts. 57 00:06:27,230 --> 00:06:33,440 Even more important than very basic, logical facts. So more important than his attack amounts. 58 00:06:33,440 --> 00:06:39,910 A logical dualism is a parallel campaign. He fights against valuated dualism. 59 00:06:39,910 --> 00:06:50,780 And this is going to be the real focus of my talk. Indeed, I think his main objection to being dualism is its service as a prop for value dualism. 60 00:06:50,780 --> 00:06:56,960 People have needed to believe that being is doable and supported their belief that values are doable. 61 00:06:56,960 --> 00:07:03,920 This is why nature cares about Cartesian dualism so much. It's associated with a sickness in our values, 62 00:07:03,920 --> 00:07:12,830 and this sickness is more directly expressed in our tendency towards a value dualism, our faith in opposite values. 63 00:07:12,830 --> 00:07:16,820 This attack of value dualism plays a major role in this thought. 64 00:07:16,820 --> 00:07:23,660 It's not too much to say. I suggest that this rejection is his main reply to morality. 65 00:07:23,660 --> 00:07:30,140 His main motive for replacing moral with aesthetic values, or, to put it another way, 66 00:07:30,140 --> 00:07:38,570 gets his main motive for replacing a morality of good versus evil with values of good versus bad. 67 00:07:38,570 --> 00:07:41,750 This attack on opposite values has been widely noticed, 68 00:07:41,750 --> 00:07:49,910 but it may be more controversial to claim that nature intends to replace it with a modernism about values and others. 69 00:07:49,910 --> 00:07:54,970 I mean this differently than the common. There is a common use of humanism. 70 00:07:54,970 --> 00:08:04,550 But the use that I've been able to find is a view that makes a view that claims that all intrinsic value lies in a single property, 71 00:08:04,550 --> 00:08:11,930 for example, happiness. I need something more radical and I think difficult than that view. 72 00:08:11,930 --> 00:08:19,550 I need instead the claim that everything has the same kind of value or indeed is maybe going a little too far. 73 00:08:19,550 --> 00:08:23,630 Everything has the same value and furniture. 74 00:08:23,630 --> 00:08:32,630 That value is good. So the idea valuable is value voters and I suggest is that everything is good. 75 00:08:32,630 --> 00:08:41,570 So values are discrepant kinds. They aren't opposite or indeed ultimately different from one another. 76 00:08:41,570 --> 00:08:49,160 Now, initially, this doesn't seem like an appealing or even a coherent position, nor something that we might recognise in nature yet. 77 00:08:49,160 --> 00:08:56,840 I think it's one of the views that he holds, dearest. It finds expression in many places in different degrees of completeness. 78 00:08:56,840 --> 00:09:05,060 And I want to remind you of this value Mon ISM's ultimate form, where it's expressed in several of his most famous ideas. 79 00:09:05,060 --> 00:09:11,470 All of them are entangled with one another, as these quotes were shown. These views are saying yes. 80 00:09:11,470 --> 00:09:21,110 Turtle return, I'm more floppy and the die Nicaea. So first Nature most prides himself as someone who says yes. 81 00:09:21,110 --> 00:09:29,930 He says yes to everything, even what seems most unsatisfactory in or about life, both his own life and life in general. 82 00:09:29,930 --> 00:09:37,070 He commands or indeed preaches this attitude to us. This is our ancestors identity to be the ultimate yes. 83 00:09:37,070 --> 00:09:42,380 Sayer quote, the opposite of a no same spirit. That's from Mecca. 84 00:09:42,380 --> 00:09:47,360 And each often presents himself so in gay science two seven six. 85 00:09:47,360 --> 00:09:52,640 He presents this as his New Year's ambition as a New Year's resolution. 86 00:09:52,640 --> 00:09:58,100 I want to learn more and more how to see what is necessary in things as what is beautiful in them. 87 00:09:58,100 --> 00:10:02,650 Thus, I will I will be one of those who make things beautiful. 88 00:10:02,650 --> 00:10:07,070 And then there's a sentence about on 40. I do not want to accuse. 89 00:10:07,070 --> 00:10:10,670 I do not even want to accuse the accusers. Looking away. 90 00:10:10,670 --> 00:10:18,140 Be my only negation and all in all. And on the whole, someday I want only to be a yes sayer. 91 00:10:18,140 --> 00:10:22,910 Now I agree with Bernard in his recent book on the importance of this. 92 00:10:22,910 --> 00:10:29,900 Bernard says that, quote, Nature regards the affirmation of life as his defining philosophical achievement. 93 00:10:29,900 --> 00:10:40,670 So I take the paper to explore as a word that at least one radical form, that this affirmation of life takes a second set of passages of concern. 94 00:10:40,670 --> 00:10:46,520 Of course, the thought of eternal return gets entangled with this, saying yes, 95 00:10:46,520 --> 00:10:57,020 so echa homo won't get the full reference introduces a total return as the highest possible formula of affirmation. 96 00:10:57,020 --> 00:11:04,130 One's ability to embrace eternal return is telling precisely because it shows that one can say yes to everything, 97 00:11:04,130 --> 00:11:11,000 even the most repellent features of life. So the thought of eternal return serves are the stre as, quote, 98 00:11:11,000 --> 00:11:18,500 one more reason for himself to be the eternal yes to all things the incredible boundless. 99 00:11:18,500 --> 00:11:27,910 Yes, saying a menacing third set of passages concern more thought to one example again from echa homo. 100 00:11:27,910 --> 00:11:32,090 Both a formula for greatness in a human being is off or phonte. 101 00:11:32,090 --> 00:11:41,720 That one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not an all eternity, not merely bare what is necessary, but love. 102 00:11:41,720 --> 00:11:46,010 And then fourthly, the die. Nicaea also of course, involves this. 103 00:11:46,010 --> 00:11:49,700 Yes. Saying passage from God to power. 104 00:11:49,700 --> 00:11:57,200 Forty one quote a diet Nicaea an affirmation of the world as it is without subtraction, exception or selection. 105 00:11:57,200 --> 00:12:03,500 The highest state a philosopher can attain to stand in a die I see in relationship to existence. 106 00:12:03,500 --> 00:12:10,920 My formula for this is of our 40 and then go to PowerGen 52. 107 00:12:10,920 --> 00:12:21,920 No, it says that in the nine ICN state quote, being is counted as wholly enough to justify even a monstrous amount of suffering. 108 00:12:21,920 --> 00:12:27,800 Now, it might be doubted, though, that this saying yes, even saying yes to everything, 109 00:12:27,800 --> 00:12:35,300 really involves a value of moaners that is saying that each thing is good. 110 00:12:35,300 --> 00:12:43,190 So Miten, Nietzsche's point instead, B, that the sum or totality of life is good. 111 00:12:43,190 --> 00:12:52,830 Not that every single instance of it is. So like his idea B, that there are a lot of bad things in the totality. 112 00:12:52,830 --> 00:13:03,780 But that they're outweighed by the good things. So the affirmation as a word applies to the totality, but is not distributed down to each member. 113 00:13:03,780 --> 00:13:12,210 All of the individual entities in this case, the affirmation would be only a yes to the song. 114 00:13:12,210 --> 00:13:16,410 And often it seems that that's what Eesha is indeed saying. 115 00:13:16,410 --> 00:13:24,540 It seems that he's judging the aggregate and that he's not inclined in some passages to say that the weak or the sick or the herd, 116 00:13:24,540 --> 00:13:30,900 like, for example, are good. But I'm going to argue that neutral means, 117 00:13:30,900 --> 00:13:39,270 at least at these moments when he thinks ultimate thoughts about eternal return and so on, that we must say yes to each thing. 118 00:13:39,270 --> 00:13:49,140 That is, we have to recognise each thing as good. So the affirmation, I'm going to say, is also at least yes to each. 119 00:13:49,140 --> 00:13:56,310 We've seen that willing a turtle return requires saying yes to even the most repellent parts or aspects of life. 120 00:13:56,310 --> 00:14:01,650 The drama of South Australia, in fact, hinges on the difficulty of this last step, too. 121 00:14:01,650 --> 00:14:11,150 Will the recurrence of even the most loathsome Zarit history marks how it is easy to turn eternal return into a mire song. 122 00:14:11,150 --> 00:14:18,540 Pretty dirty song. It's also translated depicting the cyclical character of everything beautifully. 123 00:14:18,540 --> 00:14:25,440 What's hard is to think this thought with respect to what one dislikes the most in Zaara destroys case, 124 00:14:25,440 --> 00:14:31,860 the small man to the tawdry in, I think himself and in others. 125 00:14:31,860 --> 00:14:41,820 The challenge is not just to say yes to a world that contains this, I suggest, but to say yes to this particular detested thing itself. 126 00:14:41,820 --> 00:14:50,130 Also notice in this regard how low develops the indispensability of the small and the sick in nature himself. 127 00:14:50,130 --> 00:14:54,120 He loves even this about himself. 128 00:14:54,120 --> 00:15:03,180 This distribution of intrinsic value down to every individual bit of life is buttressed by nature's metaphysical claim that everything is essential. 129 00:15:03,180 --> 00:15:09,960 Nothing in the world and all its history could be different without everything being different in as much as everything is essential. 130 00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:15,120 To say yes to anything requires saying yes to everything. 131 00:15:15,120 --> 00:15:20,010 This is a passage from Sara Strub. Did you ever say yes to a single joy? 132 00:15:20,010 --> 00:15:26,370 All my friends. Then you said yes to all well as well. All things are chained together, entwined in love. 133 00:15:26,370 --> 00:15:31,140 If you ever wanted one time, a second time, if you ever said you please me happiness. 134 00:15:31,140 --> 00:15:40,140 Quick moment. Then you wanted it all back. Nevertheless, I think even this isn't as strong as nature sometimes makes the point, 135 00:15:40,140 --> 00:15:52,140 for it still allows that many things could be good only instrumentally, only because they are necessary for other things that are good. 136 00:15:52,140 --> 00:15:54,870 It allows that although we say yes to each thing, 137 00:15:54,870 --> 00:16:02,190 we say yes to some of these things only because they are a means to necessary for other things that are intrinsically good. 138 00:16:02,190 --> 00:16:08,220 But I claim to each up at least sometimes wants the point to be that they are also good intrinsically. 139 00:16:08,220 --> 00:16:16,140 That is good in their own right for for themselves. So I suggest the affirmation of these sometimes is even stronger. 140 00:16:16,140 --> 00:16:25,980 It's a yes to each for itself. So it's not enough to value the weak for the use they serve to the strong or to the economy of the whole. 141 00:16:25,980 --> 00:16:30,900 We must somehow value weakness for itself. 142 00:16:30,900 --> 00:16:38,130 Now, as we'll see, one main argument he makes is that weakness, for example, is not just causally necessary for certain goods, 143 00:16:38,130 --> 00:16:46,620 but essential or logically necessary in such a way that it is a constituent element of those goods. 144 00:16:46,620 --> 00:16:56,470 Now, notice that even that still leaves these things goodness dependent on an argument from the goodness of the more encompassing things. 145 00:16:56,470 --> 00:17:00,510 And I don't think the media is always content even with that. 146 00:17:00,510 --> 00:17:08,070 It's not clear that weakness would be intrinsically good in this case, where it's good as an element in a larger situation. 147 00:17:08,070 --> 00:17:18,570 So look it w will to power two nine three. Nothing that happened at all can be in itself reprehensible for what should not want to eliminate it, 148 00:17:18,570 --> 00:17:24,140 for everything is so bound up with everything else that to want to exclude something means to exclude everything. 149 00:17:24,140 --> 00:17:34,290 A reprehensible action means of reprehensive world. At sometimes the point is that everything, at least everything alive is in it by itself, 150 00:17:34,290 --> 00:17:41,520 wholly and in some sense of equal value as our illustrious animals put it. 151 00:17:41,520 --> 00:17:51,480 The centre is everywhere. That seems to me to articulate the idea that everything is of equal value. 152 00:17:51,480 --> 00:18:01,500 Now these ideas. Bring nature into harmony with certain mysticism and Pantha isms, Heraclitus passage, the God. 153 00:18:01,500 --> 00:18:08,460 Day, night. Winter summer war. Peace, satiety, hunger and philosophy. 154 00:18:08,460 --> 00:18:14,040 The tragic age of the Greeks says about Heraclitus. Before the gods fire gays. 155 00:18:14,040 --> 00:18:24,000 Not a prop of injustice remains in the world for all around him and for each year to the views associated with the day of vacation of all life. 156 00:18:24,000 --> 00:18:28,800 It's not just good, but holy wield power. 1005, says the children. 157 00:18:28,800 --> 00:18:32,850 Howard, quote, did not understand how to deify the will. 158 00:18:32,850 --> 00:18:38,490 He failed to grasp that there can be an infinite variety of ways of being different. 159 00:18:38,490 --> 00:18:44,940 Even a being God's will to power 10 50 says the not at the nine ICN means, quote, 160 00:18:44,940 --> 00:18:50,010 the great pantheistic sharing of joy and sorrow that sanctifies and calls good. 161 00:18:50,010 --> 00:18:56,520 Even the most terrible and questionable qualities of life and to power tend to be too, says the Duyen ICN. 162 00:18:56,520 --> 00:19:04,530 Is the record of religious affirmation of life like whole and not denied or in part. 163 00:19:04,530 --> 00:19:14,160 Now, one way to put the puzzle behind eventually going to come back to is mysticism is commonly promote on non willing or selflessness. 164 00:19:14,160 --> 00:19:25,320 So how can this value Moate ism that I'm attributing to nature be consistent with in nature, with the promotion of willing and selfishness? 165 00:19:25,320 --> 00:19:32,220 Now, as mysticism as must be, this is both very hard to spell out and very hard to adhere to. 166 00:19:32,220 --> 00:19:38,130 It's difficult to state this value cronyism ism in a way that seems coherent. 167 00:19:38,130 --> 00:19:48,720 It seems to issue in various contradictions. Does saying that everything is good and so denying opposite values mean that nothing is bad? 168 00:19:48,720 --> 00:19:56,100 Or if we say that some things are bad? How is this consistent with also saying yes to that? 169 00:19:56,100 --> 00:20:02,040 And don't values need to come with opposites? To say that X is good requires some. 170 00:20:02,040 --> 00:20:06,600 Supposing that something else is, by contrast, bad, it seems. 171 00:20:06,600 --> 00:20:10,350 What sense can there be in saying that everything is good? 172 00:20:10,350 --> 00:20:18,300 It seems that each home must be equal to a value dualism by the very need to make judgements, pro and con. 173 00:20:18,300 --> 00:20:24,530 This difficulty is compounded if we take the view to be that everything is not just good but equally good. 174 00:20:24,530 --> 00:20:33,870 Centre is everywhere for this case. Not only can we distinguish some is good and others is bad, but we can't even make distinctions. 175 00:20:33,870 --> 00:20:39,420 A monk. Yes, right. But we can't even make distinctions amongst the good. 176 00:20:39,420 --> 00:20:46,440 We can't frank the good. We can't make up for the loss of the contrast turned bad by shifting to the idea. 177 00:20:46,440 --> 00:20:47,850 That's good. 178 00:20:47,850 --> 00:20:57,210 This makes it harder to see how the all affirming stance is consistent with valuing at all, since valuing, it seems, involves making distinctions. 179 00:20:57,210 --> 00:21:04,800 Moreover, further complication. Some bits of life are themselves cases of say no. 180 00:21:04,800 --> 00:21:11,160 So when we say yes to everything, it seems we are also saying yes to say no. 181 00:21:11,160 --> 00:21:18,160 This calls into question in what sense nature can be commending to us saying yes rather than saying no. 182 00:21:18,160 --> 00:21:26,220 Isn't he in effect saying sorry? Isn't he in effect saying yes to saying yes, but saying no to saying no? 183 00:21:26,220 --> 00:21:35,820 Hence not universally affirming after all. So there are these various puzzles, I think, that are wrapped up in this idea. 184 00:21:35,820 --> 00:21:42,780 Moreover, Nietzsche will be the first to say that living requires not just saying yes, but also saying no. 185 00:21:42,780 --> 00:21:49,020 Sometimes he seems to make this very point in reply to the most ideas that we just looked at. 186 00:21:49,020 --> 00:21:50,300 So we'll to power three, three, 187 00:21:50,300 --> 00:21:57,210 three to desire that something should be different from what it is means to desire that everything should be different. 188 00:21:57,210 --> 00:22:05,840 It involves a condemnatory critique of the whole. But life itself is such a desire. 189 00:22:05,840 --> 00:22:11,040 So life involves desiring the desiring is itself a wanting to be other. 190 00:22:11,040 --> 00:22:22,410 That is strictly a rejecting of the whole life indeed requires us not just to say no, but even to hate and fight against somethings. 191 00:22:22,410 --> 00:22:28,380 As Nietzsche himself obviously did. And so to say, a very emphatic and vehement no. 192 00:22:28,380 --> 00:22:36,630 Indeed, when the diet Nicene instance loves destruction, it loves the most violently practical way of saying no. 193 00:22:36,630 --> 00:22:41,640 So how can that Baule humanism be liveable or even coherent? 194 00:22:41,640 --> 00:22:50,370 Once nature makes value, monism require so very much as he does in those thoughts about universal affirmation. 195 00:22:50,370 --> 00:23:00,470 He sets a lower standard. For a value dualism, which it's very difficult then for him to avoid falling into. 196 00:23:00,470 --> 00:23:04,760 Now, Nietzsche himself is well aware of the apparent discrepancy between his claimed 197 00:23:04,760 --> 00:23:11,560 identity as the ultimate yes sayer and his constant devastating attacks and critiques. 198 00:23:11,560 --> 00:23:17,080 Hello. I obey my and I see a nature which does not know how to separate. 199 00:23:17,080 --> 00:23:27,380 Doing no from saying yes. Nature more acutely and aggressively than any of us wants to bring out evaluative differences and distinctions. 200 00:23:27,380 --> 00:23:32,030 Ways that some things fail and fall short of ways they might and should be. 201 00:23:32,030 --> 00:23:37,010 Indeed, one of these, as noted, this is very attack on value dualism. 202 00:23:37,010 --> 00:23:40,520 But this makes him prone to certain value judgements. 203 00:23:40,520 --> 00:23:43,850 That's after all. Moreover, the need to say no. 204 00:23:43,850 --> 00:23:50,380 So it radically overriding or suspending the mode ism in his values leads Egypt to temper it. 205 00:23:50,380 --> 00:24:01,100 I suggest in his ontology as well, he's pulled towards a by frication of organisms or persons who are drives into two opposite kinds, 206 00:24:01,100 --> 00:24:06,380 reflecting their sharply different intrinsic value. Everything is life. 207 00:24:06,380 --> 00:24:10,700 Indeed, but life comes in two antithetical kinds. 208 00:24:10,700 --> 00:24:16,940 One of which has lost part of what is essential to life. It not only takes a position against life, 209 00:24:16,940 --> 00:24:28,820 it's a. like it falls away from the full nature of life and nature especially tends to view mine or reason in particular. 210 00:24:28,820 --> 00:24:36,630 In this way. So then he reproduces, started out with the seeming dualism of mind in nature. 211 00:24:36,630 --> 00:24:44,900 I'm suggesting now is that he replaces he, as it were, repeats this dualism in some of his thoughts in the value added realm. 212 00:24:44,900 --> 00:24:56,000 He reproduces a version of the mind nature dualism, after all, by making that mind a principle contrary to life. 213 00:24:56,000 --> 00:25:07,450 So he bifurcates into active, reactive, healthy, sick, weak, strong, as if they are distinct kinds of persons or organisms. 214 00:25:07,450 --> 00:25:12,500 Of course, we find this tendency of leeches to bifurcates in many other places as well, you know, 215 00:25:12,500 --> 00:25:22,270 beginning with the Apollonian diet and ICN distinction, also in the Master Spacestation and so on. 216 00:25:22,270 --> 00:25:26,090 OK. Now, in many cases, in many such cases, 217 00:25:26,090 --> 00:25:34,370 he uses by Frication to express a kind of fervour or even fury that's comparable to the moral denunciations he criticises. 218 00:25:34,370 --> 00:25:41,990 This doonas tendency is most active where nature offers its values most truly, which is in the Antichrist longboat. 219 00:25:41,990 --> 00:25:50,210 I think I've read it. It's from Antichrist 18, condemning the Christian idea of God. 220 00:25:50,210 --> 00:25:52,670 The problem, man, is to explain how nature can be at once. 221 00:25:52,670 --> 00:26:03,330 The person who says yes to life in general and in each particular, and the one who is relentlessly and harshly naked in most of his appraiser's. 222 00:26:03,330 --> 00:26:07,160 And what's a value most and a value duellist? 223 00:26:07,160 --> 00:26:14,280 Now, I think a first reaction to my sketch of this problem is that his real allegiance is to neither Bonas nor dualism, 224 00:26:14,280 --> 00:26:19,820 and that we should really see him as a pluralist with respect to being or what is. 225 00:26:19,820 --> 00:26:27,500 We remark his emphasis on the great diversity of different kinds of life and persons and social and historical settings. 226 00:26:27,500 --> 00:26:34,370 Similarly, with respect to values, Nietzsche thinks that the value of people comes in a great hierarchy of degrees. 227 00:26:34,370 --> 00:26:38,240 All the steps of the ladder he so often imagines. 228 00:26:38,240 --> 00:26:45,350 However, I think these pluralism is about being in value are really consistent with his MÔN isms here. 229 00:26:45,350 --> 00:26:49,760 The great diversity of forms of life are, after all, all forms of life. 230 00:26:49,760 --> 00:26:52,790 The one fundamental kind of thing there is. 231 00:26:52,790 --> 00:27:02,990 And similarly, I'll try to show for the great hierarchy or ladder of values, they are all ways of having the goodness that belongs to life. 232 00:27:02,990 --> 00:27:07,230 So the pluralism by itself, I think, doesn't pose a threat to my account. 233 00:27:07,230 --> 00:27:14,990 Features Monas. However, the pluralism may be associated with another doctrine that raises greater problems. 234 00:27:14,990 --> 00:27:18,200 And this is Nietzsche's so-called perspective ism. 235 00:27:18,200 --> 00:27:28,070 Sometimes it seems he gives authority concerning being concerning values to all, or at least to a great plurality of perspectives. 236 00:27:28,070 --> 00:27:35,390 He makes being an value person. But Tibo. It seems we might take him to exemplify this perspective ism in his own 237 00:27:35,390 --> 00:27:42,290 freewheeling way of articulating a great scatter of perspectives all by himself. 238 00:27:42,290 --> 00:27:49,790 So he sometimes expresses phoniest sympathy sentiments, other times duellist, other times pluralist. 239 00:27:49,790 --> 00:27:58,440 But the last the suggestion. Maybe is also the view of the pluralists is also the view that he holds at the metal level. 240 00:27:58,440 --> 00:28:06,420 And so there's a kind of perspective of pluralism which embeds mon ism and dualism within it. 241 00:28:06,420 --> 00:28:14,870 Now, for these and other reasons, it may well seem that there isn't a serious question here as to whether each is an honest or to do. 242 00:28:14,870 --> 00:28:19,770 But I want to persuade you that these are indeed two powerful tendencies or inclinations 243 00:28:19,770 --> 00:28:25,760 in one or the other of which finds expression in most of his most famous views. 244 00:28:25,760 --> 00:28:40,380 I'm not going to skip the section which which I compact's on the topic of the conference and discuss the being monism teeth to this kind of nature. 245 00:28:40,380 --> 00:28:51,210 And I'm going to turn to I want to focus now on one famous way that each of states his value modernism as an attack on opposite values. 246 00:28:51,210 --> 00:28:57,480 The most prominent locus for this is his critique of metaphysics and beyond good and evil, too. 247 00:28:57,480 --> 00:29:08,900 There's a famous passage for the fundamental faith of the metaphysicians is the faith in opposite values and the ongoing evil tooth. 248 00:29:08,900 --> 00:29:14,970 It goes on to say that no one may doubt first whether there are any opposites at all. 249 00:29:14,970 --> 00:29:20,610 Moreover, it's possible that both what constitutes the value of these good and revered things is 250 00:29:20,610 --> 00:29:26,970 precisely that they are insidiously related to a related tie to an involved with these wicked, 251 00:29:26,970 --> 00:29:30,360 seemingly opposite things. Maybe even one with them. 252 00:29:30,360 --> 00:29:37,860 In essence, this line of thought is developed in many other places, both later and beyond, good and evil and elsewhere. 253 00:29:37,860 --> 00:29:42,140 So beyond good and evil 47 quote The dominion of morals. 254 00:29:42,140 --> 00:29:50,990 It believed in opposite moral values and saw read interpreted these opposites into the text and the facts. 255 00:29:50,990 --> 00:30:01,950 Zaara thus draw the historical zah at this try. Nature's conception was in the adventure of the good evil opposition of the value dualism. 256 00:30:01,950 --> 00:30:07,950 And so the spokes are history is the story of his recantation of vandalism. 257 00:30:07,950 --> 00:30:11,210 This is a point that we find Meachem making from very early on. 258 00:30:11,210 --> 00:30:19,470 I read a passage from human to human, the very first section of it, which I am going to skip over. 259 00:30:19,470 --> 00:30:26,940 I think it's clear that this rejection of opposite values is part of the complaint against the values of good versus evil. 260 00:30:26,940 --> 00:30:34,320 The kind of values he often calls just slave morality and sometimes just morality. 261 00:30:34,320 --> 00:30:40,140 I think it's clear this rejection of opposite values that that part of his 262 00:30:40,140 --> 00:30:44,580 criticism of these values is directed against what they value their content, 263 00:30:44,580 --> 00:30:50,070 but that some of it is also directed against how they value these contents. 264 00:30:50,070 --> 00:31:02,520 And that formal part of his criticism of good, evil morality part is against the way good and evil polarises or bifurcates the world. 265 00:31:02,520 --> 00:31:13,290 So when each offers his own valuations of things healthy or sick, as strong or weak, as high or low, I'm going to sum these as simply good and bad. 266 00:31:13,290 --> 00:31:20,010 He presumably means those contrasts not as opposite values. 267 00:31:20,010 --> 00:31:29,080 So I think we can take it that the sense in which nature denies that values are opposite is a key to the sense in which he rejects valuing dualism. 268 00:31:29,080 --> 00:31:38,070 Hence to the way he's a value focussed. So just what does he mean by his denial of homosexuality? 269 00:31:38,070 --> 00:31:44,160 It seems a natural and obvious distinction in Nietzsche's voice. But what does a really consistent. 270 00:31:44,160 --> 00:31:51,750 What is it to have one's values as opposites? In what sense are good and evil meant as opposites? 271 00:31:51,750 --> 00:31:56,820 But each his own values of good. Bad. Not now. 272 00:31:56,820 --> 00:32:01,950 Not surprisingly, analysis shows. I think, that nature means a variety of things. 273 00:32:01,950 --> 00:32:10,590 In his critiques of opposite values, in the various passages in which he treats this theme, I want to try to organise some of this variety. 274 00:32:10,590 --> 00:32:14,610 I'm going to arrange it from weakest to strongest, 275 00:32:14,610 --> 00:32:22,200 starting with the more obvious in ordinary things he means and building to the more radical and difficult. 276 00:32:22,200 --> 00:32:32,130 These weaker points, I think, are, as it were, the steps by which he tries to help us and himself up to the ultimate lesson. 277 00:32:32,130 --> 00:32:39,600 And we when we get to the most radical sense, we will have arrived back at the strong value voters in my survey before. 278 00:32:39,600 --> 00:32:48,750 And I'm then going to return to the question how each can consistently or accurately hold it now before proceeding to this catwalk. 279 00:32:48,750 --> 00:32:52,200 I need to make a few background orienting points I want to set. 280 00:32:52,200 --> 00:32:58,160 Aside, a couple of special issues that cut against the grain of the census that I'll distinguish. 281 00:32:58,160 --> 00:33:09,530 So first background point, these census that I'll distinguish of having opposite values of value dualism are all ways of thinking about one's values. 282 00:33:09,530 --> 00:33:14,120 They're matters of the status one attributes to them. 283 00:33:14,120 --> 00:33:22,130 Now, it might be argued against this that having opposite values is really for nature, not a matter of how you think or as a word. 284 00:33:22,130 --> 00:33:28,430 cognise your values, but a matter of the emotive force with which you hold them. 285 00:33:28,430 --> 00:33:36,590 So in the receptors, no, there's a special intensity of animosity towards his enemies. 286 00:33:36,590 --> 00:33:42,980 And this strength or ship shape of feeling might be thought to be the really crucial element in the judgement. 287 00:33:42,980 --> 00:33:50,510 Evil nature does indeed emphasise this difference in feeling that the strong birds of prey, 288 00:33:50,510 --> 00:33:55,670 as he once memorably puts it, are a lot more favourably disposed towards those. 289 00:33:55,670 --> 00:34:02,330 They judge bad lambs than a ladder out towards them. 290 00:34:02,330 --> 00:34:11,510 But I think Nietzsche clearly believes that this emotive force is fuelled and justified by certain beliefs about the status of one's values. 291 00:34:11,510 --> 00:34:21,870 Good and evil are meant are thought to be values of a particular kind, not just felt with a certain intensity or from certain ulterior motives. 292 00:34:21,870 --> 00:34:29,510 And Nietzsche's own way of altering the feeling is by altering those beliefs, the senses of having opposite values. 293 00:34:29,510 --> 00:34:32,780 All distinguished. Second, second, background point. 294 00:34:32,780 --> 00:34:41,480 The census of having opposite values that are distinguished are all meant as general points about how any values are held. 295 00:34:41,480 --> 00:34:49,170 So I'm taking them as not directed against and limited to particular value contents. 296 00:34:49,170 --> 00:34:57,050 Now sometimes we'll see when we look at the passages that nature's complaint is not against having opposite values per say, 297 00:34:57,050 --> 00:35:05,660 but against valuing certain particular things as opposites, viewing certain things as an opposite. 298 00:35:05,660 --> 00:35:15,160 It's sometimes that seems to be more a critique of the good evil opposition as it is widely held today. 299 00:35:15,160 --> 00:35:22,100 But these particular things called evil are in fact a better, more valuable than those called good. 300 00:35:22,100 --> 00:35:29,390 So aggressiveness or suffering were taken as evil, but are in fact value. 301 00:35:29,390 --> 00:35:36,980 And the Diane ICANN embraces these in particular. It might be thought, but not other things. 302 00:35:36,980 --> 00:35:47,780 So will power ten forty one. It is part of this by an icy and state to proceed, not merely the necessity of those sides of existence hitherto to deny, 303 00:35:47,780 --> 00:35:53,870 but their desirability and not their desirability merely in relation to the sites hitherto affirmed. 304 00:35:53,870 --> 00:35:58,090 Perhaps as a compliment, a precondition, but for their own sake, as the more powerful, 305 00:35:58,090 --> 00:36:03,700 more fruitful, truer sides of existence in which its will finds clearer expression. 306 00:36:03,700 --> 00:36:07,970 So no evil side about just valuing the good side. 307 00:36:07,970 --> 00:36:15,580 And that seems to open an opposite kind of dualism. And that's, in fact, the way that particular passage goes on. 308 00:36:15,580 --> 00:36:22,310 This is nature very often makes his point against opposite values with respect to good and evil. 309 00:36:22,310 --> 00:36:27,350 We have to consider whether he really would apply the point to his own values. 310 00:36:27,350 --> 00:36:33,320 Would he also say of the things he calls bad or sick or weak or hurt like that? 311 00:36:33,320 --> 00:36:40,280 They are also good. My claim is that he does that evil, that he denies that dualism. 312 00:36:40,280 --> 00:36:47,120 He denies dualism. It affirms a kind of monism also with respect to his own values. 313 00:36:47,120 --> 00:36:54,050 So my suggestion is that we need to separate out from his attacks on the evil, the good evil dichotomy. 314 00:36:54,050 --> 00:37:01,730 Those elements that are directed against or only value balut, given its content, the particular trade signals. 315 00:37:01,730 --> 00:37:09,800 Good. And the problem of value dualism is the question whether it turns out to be mostly a matter of context. 316 00:37:09,800 --> 00:37:15,710 So the Nietzsche's own values are just about as dualistic as equal values. 317 00:37:15,710 --> 00:37:22,040 So the following I'm going to preserve the teacher also means to deny that his good and bad are opposite values, 318 00:37:22,040 --> 00:37:26,360 that his arguments against opposite values militate against taking good and bad. 319 00:37:26,360 --> 00:37:39,620 So as well. OK, now let's proceed now to the things that each a might and sometimes does, I think mean by his attack on having opposite values. 320 00:37:39,620 --> 00:37:43,960 So the first and weakest suggestion is this. 321 00:37:43,960 --> 00:37:53,570 Values. Good and bad don't originate. You aren't somehow rounded different ontological realms. 322 00:37:53,570 --> 00:38:01,310 So good in particular, doesn't Utian from an immaterial substance such as a free and rational soul? 323 00:38:01,310 --> 00:38:07,460 Sometimes the opposite ends of dualistic value seems to lie just in the claim. 324 00:38:07,460 --> 00:38:11,300 These values are grounded in such a dualism. 325 00:38:11,300 --> 00:38:18,920 So NEACH often makes the point that good actions must be explained by the same naturalistic principles that apply to the bad. 326 00:38:18,920 --> 00:38:24,080 In particular, the same aggressive and sensual bodily drives that have long been blamed for bad 327 00:38:24,080 --> 00:38:30,520 behaviour are also the ultimate source of even our most altruistic and saintly acts. 328 00:38:30,520 --> 00:38:40,940 Will power 375000 all the drives and powers that morality praises seem to me to be essentially the same as those names and rejects. 329 00:38:40,940 --> 00:38:49,190 That is our Chief Justice as world power wheel to truth, as a tool of the will to power and wield power to seven. 330 00:38:49,190 --> 00:38:57,440 To quote my purpose, to demonstrate the absolute homogeneity of all events and the application of moral distinctions 331 00:38:57,440 --> 00:39:03,650 has occasioned by perspective to demonstrate how everything praised as moral is identical, 332 00:39:03,650 --> 00:39:11,310 in essence, with everything immoral and was made possible as in every development of morality within moral means. 333 00:39:11,310 --> 00:39:20,180 And Morgan ends. Similarly, he stresses how good and evil traits morph into one another. 334 00:39:20,180 --> 00:39:27,050 Here I have another hepatitis passage. For comparison, Heraclitus says the same. 335 00:39:27,050 --> 00:39:38,300 Living and dead and waking and sleeping and young and old for these transposed are those and those transposed again are these. 336 00:39:38,300 --> 00:39:47,490 So on this reading, this first reading value dualism is defined by its metaphysical postulation of another world. 337 00:39:47,490 --> 00:39:52,790 Nietzsche here cleaves to a literal sense of metaphysics beyond nature. 338 00:39:52,790 --> 00:39:57,350 It's postulating something apart from nature, life. 339 00:39:57,350 --> 00:40:05,900 So this passage from geneology morality, the idea we are fighting about here is the valuation of our life on the part of the ascetic priest. 340 00:40:05,900 --> 00:40:08,660 He relates our life together with that to which it belongs. 341 00:40:08,660 --> 00:40:15,950 Nature, world, the entire sphere of becoming a transit hairiness to an entirely different kind of existence, 342 00:40:15,950 --> 00:40:22,910 which it opposes and excludes, unless perhaps it works in turn against itself to negate itself. 343 00:40:22,910 --> 00:40:27,410 So understood, Nietzsche's critique of value dualism would be straightforward. 344 00:40:27,410 --> 00:40:34,010 There is no such other world. No separate kind of cause will to power 786. 345 00:40:34,010 --> 00:40:40,100 One has invented an antithesis to the motivating forces and believes one has described another kind of force. 346 00:40:40,100 --> 00:40:44,480 One has imagined that premium will be light. That does not exist at all. 347 00:40:44,480 --> 00:40:48,980 According to the valuation that involved the antithesis moral and immoral in general, 348 00:40:48,980 --> 00:40:53,990 one has to say there are only immoral intentions and actions later. 349 00:40:53,990 --> 00:40:58,340 Altruistic actions are only a species of egoistic actions. 350 00:40:58,340 --> 00:41:09,020 So here the value of dualism here, the here, the being here, the being monism is used to refute value dualism with understanding the latter. 351 00:41:09,020 --> 00:41:15,050 As my definition positing being dualism elsewhere, however, 352 00:41:15,050 --> 00:41:24,020 I think it's clear that Meecham doesn't just reduce value dualism to this view that hangs on being dualism, 353 00:41:24,020 --> 00:41:29,300 although being dualism is often used to support value dualism. 354 00:41:29,300 --> 00:41:34,670 He thinks the value dualism has an independent motive and an independent identity. 355 00:41:34,670 --> 00:41:41,210 Then this reference to an other worldly source. Second thing, the second somewhat stronger thing, 356 00:41:41,210 --> 00:41:51,970 that the denial of opposite values might mean values good that are never instantiated purely or completely. 357 00:41:51,970 --> 00:41:59,030 To put the APA point abstractly, no X is ever fully good or fully bad. 358 00:41:59,030 --> 00:42:08,690 But of course there are many different ways of understanding this, depending first on how we understand what replaces X in the claim as nature means. 359 00:42:08,690 --> 00:42:17,210 So first, does the point apply to types of entities or does it apply to particular's? 360 00:42:17,210 --> 00:42:27,230 Isn't, for example, suffering as a kind of human experience that nature claims is not fully bad, 361 00:42:27,230 --> 00:42:41,330 but also good in this case of nature's point might be that there are some cases in which suffering is good and he would allow it to be possible. 362 00:42:41,330 --> 00:42:49,620 Then in other cases it is just bad. So that would be to treat. 363 00:42:49,620 --> 00:42:59,550 You know what it is that is never fully good or fully bad as a type of of of property, or is it rather than suffering? 364 00:42:59,550 --> 00:43:13,020 In each instance, as undergone by a particular organism in some particular situation, is always good as well as bad. 365 00:43:13,020 --> 00:43:21,550 Now, I encourage you to look at Nietzsche's arguments here. Many of them, I think, support only the former claim former we. 366 00:43:21,550 --> 00:43:22,660 For example, 367 00:43:22,660 --> 00:43:34,850 the argument that suffering is essential for growth or creativity seems to apply only to particular kinds of suffering of particular people. 368 00:43:34,850 --> 00:43:42,550 But the latter view, the claim that suffering in each case is always good as well as bad. 369 00:43:42,550 --> 00:43:47,230 That is obviously a much stronger view and much more difficult to argue or accept. 370 00:43:47,230 --> 00:43:57,030 Does nature think that even the bodily suffering of those quite unable to overcome it and to grow through it is also good nevertheless, 371 00:43:57,030 --> 00:43:58,600 although harder to accept? 372 00:43:58,600 --> 00:44:07,460 It seems to me that nature does hold the stronger view, at least in these sort of transcendent moments in which he is a universal yes sayer. 373 00:44:07,460 --> 00:44:16,450 The second question that comes up about this, this way of understanding the denial of opposite values, 374 00:44:16,450 --> 00:44:26,440 what is the range or level of entities that the ex applies to when he says that no ex is ever fully good or bad? 375 00:44:26,440 --> 00:44:31,720 Is it that no person is ever thoroughly good or bad? 376 00:44:31,720 --> 00:44:38,680 That would leave it open. That's some particular acts by a person. Could be thoroughly good or thoroughly bad. 377 00:44:38,680 --> 00:44:48,490 Or does the point apply also to particular acts such as acting from pity or experiences such as a suffering, a particular suffering? 378 00:44:48,490 --> 00:44:56,710 Again, it seems to me if you look at Nietzsche's arguments, I think you'll see that many of them apply only to the weaker point. 379 00:44:56,710 --> 00:45:03,760 But it seems to me he is trying to drive us, steer us towards the stronger point. 380 00:45:03,760 --> 00:45:11,200 He wants the stronger point. He, it seems to me, wants to deny value purity all the way down. 381 00:45:11,200 --> 00:45:16,080 OK. Now why? And then I could actually skip over. 382 00:45:16,080 --> 00:45:27,480 I mean, there's a further number of distinctions about trying to examine what that value purity might how it might be understood, 383 00:45:27,480 --> 00:45:35,410 know whether it's a matter of how the denial of the value of purity might be understood, 384 00:45:35,410 --> 00:45:41,950 whether it's a matter that everything has parts that are good as well as parts that are bad, 385 00:45:41,950 --> 00:45:46,810 whether it's a matter of having aspects that are good at aspects that are bad or 386 00:45:46,810 --> 00:45:52,830 whether it's a matter of having facts that are good as well as effects that are bad. 387 00:45:52,830 --> 00:46:03,220 If there are various ways, it seems to me that the argument gets put by him, skip over this complexity. 388 00:46:03,220 --> 00:46:11,650 Why does nature thing or how does he argue that there is no pure good or bad leaving out a perspective ist argument? 389 00:46:11,650 --> 00:46:15,740 I think there are two main reasons. First is an entity. 390 00:46:15,740 --> 00:46:23,410 The person the drive in act is never completely good or bad because each depends practically on being the other. 391 00:46:23,410 --> 00:46:25,420 In some way. 392 00:46:25,420 --> 00:46:38,130 So will the power, 351 says against what he calls the BGA of the good man who separates off one side of various dualisms and insists on just quote, 393 00:46:38,130 --> 00:46:44,140 what is good unconditioned. One also knows how to be evil. 394 00:46:44,140 --> 00:46:48,640 One is evil because otherwise one would not understand how to be good. 395 00:46:48,640 --> 00:46:56,980 Whence then comes the sickness, an ideological unnaturalness that rejects this doubleness, that teaches that it is a higher thing to be efficient. 396 00:46:56,980 --> 00:47:04,360 On only one side, whence comes the Hema PGA of virtue, the invention of the good man. 397 00:47:04,360 --> 00:47:11,980 This unnaturalness corresponds then to that dualistic conception of a merely good and a merely evil creature. 398 00:47:11,980 --> 00:47:24,240 So the idea is that as a practically speaking, you can only be good if you also have bad traits, may be bad if you also are good at certain ways. 399 00:47:24,240 --> 00:47:30,710 You are a good thief or better yet and only be bad as a thief. 400 00:47:30,710 --> 00:47:35,890 Not sure just how to put that. Let me let me skip that over. Okay. Second second kind of argument. 401 00:47:35,890 --> 00:47:42,670 I think you give nothing. No person drive or act is ever completely good or bad because it inevitably has 402 00:47:42,670 --> 00:47:48,850 opposite effects on different organisms or people due to the immense differences. 403 00:47:48,850 --> 00:47:56,410 The different people in action say effects it will inevitably further some, but inhibit others. 404 00:47:56,410 --> 00:48:01,600 OK. Now, although nature does rule all of these points, I think you would find. 405 00:48:01,600 --> 00:48:11,230 I think you recognise all of these as arguments that he makes in various places, makes all of these points rejecting value purity. 406 00:48:11,230 --> 00:48:13,860 I think this still is at the gist of his point. 407 00:48:13,860 --> 00:48:23,110 And I think we should suspect this when we see how easy it is to agree with most of these planes will readily admit that nobody's perfect. 408 00:48:23,110 --> 00:48:27,820 Perhaps we'll also be happy to apply this even to particular acts or experiences. 409 00:48:27,820 --> 00:48:33,040 Isn't there always at least some tinge of the negative in any action? 410 00:48:33,040 --> 00:48:41,140 Perhaps we'll also agree that things effects are multifarious and that some of them are good, some of them are bad in this way. 411 00:48:41,140 --> 00:48:43,840 This isn't very far from common sense. 412 00:48:43,840 --> 00:48:52,930 It seems quite consistent with ratter ordinary ambition to analyse and sum up the manifold goods and bads of a person or an act. 413 00:48:52,930 --> 00:48:57,940 And so arrive at judgements about its overall goodness or badness. 414 00:48:57,940 --> 00:49:02,260 It doesn't change, as it were, the logic of good and bad themselves. 415 00:49:02,260 --> 00:49:12,370 But only the conception of how they're distributed in the world, distributed in true intermittently, as it were, not concentrated or pure. 416 00:49:12,370 --> 00:49:22,660 So I want to go on now to more radical claims of a claim about the logic of good and bad, rather than about how they happen to show up in the world. 417 00:49:22,660 --> 00:49:27,520 So the third thing that he might mean by the denial about this, about this, 418 00:49:27,520 --> 00:49:38,020 is that values good and bad are scalar or comparative rather than bifurcating or inherent. 419 00:49:38,020 --> 00:49:48,970 So the reasons that I talk about just now for thinking that good and bad must always be co instantiated are causal reasons and some empirical reasons. 420 00:49:48,970 --> 00:49:56,200 But each, I think, also has what you might call conceptual reasons, connecting good and bad by necessity. 421 00:49:56,200 --> 00:50:01,960 The simplest form of such an argument is to call something good requires that there be a bad. 422 00:50:01,960 --> 00:50:07,280 It's contrasted with. So there's something incoherent about hoping for a world in which bad. 423 00:50:07,280 --> 00:50:11,860 The contrast case is eliminated. Again, a quote from Heraclitus. 424 00:50:11,860 --> 00:50:17,530 For humans to get all they want is not better. Disease makes health sweet and good. 425 00:50:17,530 --> 00:50:23,290 Hunger, satiety weariness. Blessed quote from nature to power. 426 00:50:23,290 --> 00:50:27,880 Three five one. It takes good and evil for realities that contradict one another. 427 00:50:27,880 --> 00:50:32,170 Not as complimentary value concepts, which would be the truth. 428 00:50:32,170 --> 00:50:38,330 It advises taking the side of the good desires. The good should renounce and oppose the evil down to its ultimate roots. 429 00:50:38,330 --> 00:50:44,740 Yet there, with actually a nice life, which has in all its instincts, both yes and no. 430 00:50:44,740 --> 00:50:49,810 But each, I think, makes us stronger and more interesting point than this. 431 00:50:49,810 --> 00:50:55,510 Good requires bad not just for contrast, but as an element in itself. 432 00:50:55,510 --> 00:51:02,660 Good is always an overcoming of a bad in one that way that nature argues this is with respect to suffering. 433 00:51:02,660 --> 00:51:08,170 And again, I refer to Bernhard's develops this point, I think, very well. 434 00:51:08,170 --> 00:51:14,710 He says that suffering is valued for its own sake because it is metaphysically necessary for creativity, 435 00:51:14,710 --> 00:51:21,190 as overcoming creativity is always an overcoming of suffering. 436 00:51:21,190 --> 00:51:25,990 More generally, it seems to me, we can find this logic in Nietzsche's idea of power. 437 00:51:25,990 --> 00:51:33,520 As a matter of overcoming power is a growth that rises above something it leaves behind as bad. 438 00:51:33,520 --> 00:51:41,980 This can be another organism that incorporates but more essentially, I think it's the inferior earlier condition itself. 439 00:51:41,980 --> 00:51:46,960 Power is precisely the transition from a good, from a bad to a good. 440 00:51:46,960 --> 00:51:50,330 And so depends on both elements. Hence good and bad. 441 00:51:50,330 --> 00:52:00,700 And in an asymmetric relation, Reachin says the latter is presupposed by even contained within the former as what it overcomes. 442 00:52:00,700 --> 00:52:09,070 But that doesn't in the same way contain good is not a dissent from the good nature draws the lesson from this applied not to good bad, 443 00:52:09,070 --> 00:52:13,600 but to pleasure pain that they are therefore not opposites. This is world power. 444 00:52:13,600 --> 00:52:17,740 Six, nine, nine. Pain is something different from pleasure. 445 00:52:17,740 --> 00:52:24,870 I mean to say it is not. Its opposite for unpleasant. And this is now not prose but sort of summary for unplayed here isn't it. 446 00:52:24,870 --> 00:52:27,040 Reading Indian pleasure. 447 00:52:27,040 --> 00:52:37,310 As we see from tickling and sex, which nature thinks are pleasures composed of quote, a certain rhythmic succession of small and pleasurable stimuli. 448 00:52:37,310 --> 00:52:43,330 End quote. But pleasure is not simply contained within pain. 449 00:52:43,330 --> 00:52:48,770 Similarly, Southeaster says that creating requires destroying and quote, thus does the. 450 00:52:48,770 --> 00:52:54,930 People belong to the highest good, but the latter is the creator of this ideas expressed, of course, 451 00:52:54,930 --> 00:53:03,390 in the way nature so commonly thinks of values in terms of the scale or ladder up which we aspire to ascend. 452 00:53:03,390 --> 00:53:09,750 Let's see. I think I'm going to have to skips things. 453 00:53:09,750 --> 00:53:18,840 Yes, I'm going to skip and I'm going to go on to the fourth thing that each home might mean by the dialogue's values. 454 00:53:18,840 --> 00:53:25,320 And that is what I want to say, is that each goes an important step beyond this point that I just made, 455 00:53:25,320 --> 00:53:34,800 which is I'm suggesting a kind of scalar point that there is a lack of value 456 00:53:34,800 --> 00:53:41,260 and that things have value by their relative positions in this latter nature. 457 00:53:41,260 --> 00:53:51,840 Those important step beyond the scalar point, he specifies the common values which fall of these positions are degrees of. 458 00:53:51,840 --> 00:53:57,330 He specifies the common value as good. So he takes the opposite stance. 459 00:53:57,330 --> 00:54:07,680 We might say from and power for whom all life is bad and all quote unquote goods are merely lesser degrees of bad. 460 00:54:07,680 --> 00:54:16,150 So escape from willing is, as it were, it was zero degree of bad for children or the best we can do. 461 00:54:16,150 --> 00:54:22,070 Now, let's say that this is really what the Yes. Say good speech to that. 462 00:54:22,070 --> 00:54:30,480 The common value which there are all of these degrees is good. 463 00:54:30,480 --> 00:54:38,370 To say yes to something is to judge it good and saying yes to everything is to judge everything is good 464 00:54:38,370 --> 00:54:49,560 is to place everything on a scale of values whose common character is that the common value is good now. 465 00:54:49,560 --> 00:54:54,150 So we'll power ten thirty five God conceived as an emancipation from morality, 466 00:54:54,150 --> 00:55:00,840 taking into himself the whole fullness of life's antithesis and its divine torment, redeeming and justifying them. 467 00:55:00,840 --> 00:55:07,230 God is beyond and above the wretched Bofors morality of good and evil. 468 00:55:07,230 --> 00:55:10,440 So Beach's ultimate judgement of things is that they are good. 469 00:55:10,440 --> 00:55:16,020 It seems that when he calls them bad, this must be kind of specification of their goodness. 470 00:55:16,020 --> 00:55:21,660 Their badness is their way of being good. That simply means less good at what they could do. 471 00:55:21,660 --> 00:55:26,880 So well. The bad. Occupy the same scale as the grid. 472 00:55:26,880 --> 00:55:32,040 By contrast, in the good evil morality, the evil are not treated as. 473 00:55:32,040 --> 00:55:44,020 That's good. They don't have a common project with too good. It's not the case in that morality that their goodness is a way of being bad. 474 00:55:44,020 --> 00:55:50,250 It's offering to nurture the goodness of things on the scale is not a way of being bad. 475 00:55:50,250 --> 00:55:55,470 Only the opposite holds. Now, of course, we should ask, what grounds does nature have for this? 476 00:55:55,470 --> 00:56:00,780 Why believe that all bad is a form of good? 477 00:56:00,780 --> 00:56:15,520 Now, from God's eye point of view, why doesn't everything just become a location on this scale at once, both good to an extent and bad to an extent. 478 00:56:15,520 --> 00:56:22,770 Now, in the positiveness period, I think Nietzsche accepts this lesson. So that from an ultimate viewpoint, there aren't a certain sense, no values. 479 00:56:22,770 --> 00:56:28,440 They're just positions on a certain scale. And I have a quote here from human to human. 480 00:56:28,440 --> 00:56:40,270 One one seven, which I'm not going to read. But in his later writings, he throws himself back into value into valuing everything as good. 481 00:56:40,270 --> 00:56:48,030 OK. Now, why? So why do you think that's why do you think that all of the values on this scale. 482 00:56:48,030 --> 00:57:00,360 Good. I think that his his argument is ultimately the role that life plays in constituting all values. 483 00:57:00,360 --> 00:57:07,590 So there are values only by virtue of like value is only in life's value. 484 00:57:07,590 --> 00:57:13,950 Moreover, what life values as good is itself more of itself. 485 00:57:13,950 --> 00:57:18,330 So life as the transcendental condition of all values. 486 00:57:18,330 --> 00:57:23,670 And as the built in aim of all values is the ultimate good. 487 00:57:23,670 --> 00:57:30,330 So what we can say from the broadest perspective, the perspective of life, is that life is good. 488 00:57:30,330 --> 00:57:36,450 Any distinctions we go on to make? We'll speak of only one kind of life. 489 00:57:36,450 --> 00:57:41,400 This will find some life good and other life bad. So beyond. 490 00:57:41,400 --> 00:57:46,410 So, so low. The Monas perspective of life itself. There's a value of pluralism. 491 00:57:46,410 --> 00:57:55,620 There are different goods internally to the different perspectives. But from the transcendent point of view, point of view as a work of life itself. 492 00:57:55,620 --> 00:58:06,630 Life is simply the good. And I suggest that this is a key feature of the good, bad values nature promotes in place of the good evil morality. 493 00:58:06,630 --> 00:58:11,730 It operates with the orienting judgement that life itself in general. 494 00:58:11,730 --> 00:58:16,470 And in every instance is good. And Nietzsche's chief argument against the good, evil, 495 00:58:16,470 --> 00:58:25,500 morality or Christianity or the ascetic ideal is that it operates with ultimately the opposite judgement that life is bad. 496 00:58:25,500 --> 00:58:38,070 Now, there is still a question why this universal gas doesn't collapse the scale of values together and lead to a blanket or monochrome affirmation. 497 00:58:38,070 --> 00:58:40,440 Can nature really reconcile, 498 00:58:40,440 --> 00:58:49,020 harmonise this universal yes to the idea of a comparative scale and its determination of one direction or relation as bad? 499 00:58:49,020 --> 00:58:52,950 How can we affirm universally yet still say no? 500 00:58:52,950 --> 00:58:59,280 How can that be a degree of good? We know that Egypt is extremely ready to say no. 501 00:58:59,280 --> 00:59:07,170 His work is not a universal yes. Say. And in fact, he explicitly rejects up like an affirmation. 502 00:59:07,170 --> 00:59:12,840 Certain passages. I have a quotation from Sir of those dropped three above, which I won't read. 503 00:59:12,840 --> 00:59:20,970 So the question is, how can you just say yes to life, not just in the aggregate, but also in every individual, but also go on to say no? 504 00:59:20,970 --> 00:59:27,630 That is disvalue evaluate his bad. So many things. How can he consistently disvalue anything? 505 00:59:27,630 --> 00:59:34,230 This is what I want to address. In the last section, which I'm going to have to skate through very quickly. 506 00:59:34,230 --> 00:59:39,720 OK. So my suggestion is that each has two strategies for responding to this problem. 507 00:59:39,720 --> 00:59:45,000 The problem, how he cannot once affirm everything as good. 508 00:59:45,000 --> 00:59:52,230 Yet on the other hand, a value of two distinctions and say no to many particular things. 509 00:59:52,230 --> 00:59:56,920 Now, a first so first possible answer is this. 510 00:59:56,920 --> 01:00:03,450 The teacher simply passes back and forth in these different passages between two perspectives. 511 01:00:03,450 --> 01:00:09,030 On the one hand, a transcendental perspective that sees life has ultimate value. 512 01:00:09,030 --> 01:00:15,150 Secondly, a perspective within life, his own perspective. The disvalue is many kinds of life. 513 01:00:15,150 --> 01:00:22,920 So another passage from Heraclitus, a famous passage. I guess it's not supposed to be Heraclitus, his words, but an approximation for God. 514 01:00:22,920 --> 01:00:28,650 All things are beautiful. No value when we occupy the transcendent perspective. 515 01:00:28,650 --> 01:00:32,880 But then we throw ourselves back into life and into the internal. 516 01:00:32,880 --> 01:00:38,100 Yes and no value required for living. OK. 517 01:00:38,100 --> 01:00:47,160 Now I have passages to show that he does, in fact, think of that transcendent perspective as a perspective. 518 01:00:47,160 --> 01:00:52,410 And that he thinks of a sometimes describes it as a temporary perspective. OK. 519 01:00:52,410 --> 01:01:00,450 So one way to accommodate dualism is to say that the moment is certain, yet the monism is offered from God's eye super. 520 01:01:00,450 --> 01:01:08,850 Her perspective, I would position the dualism is offered from within Nietzsche's personal view. 521 01:01:08,850 --> 01:01:10,890 But as it stands, 522 01:01:10,890 --> 01:01:20,170 I think we have to notice that this reading of nature performs a by frication of his position into two views that don't affect one another. 523 01:01:20,170 --> 01:01:25,740 The transcendental. Yes, saying approves of the within life, saying no. 524 01:01:25,740 --> 01:01:30,600 But it doesn't affect how we say no or what we say no to. 525 01:01:30,600 --> 01:01:40,110 So it is in this respect at least photios it turns a wheel in the transcendental essay doesn't affect the way in which we sing within life. 526 01:01:40,110 --> 01:01:47,190 Surely that can't be so. Nature surely wants to improve the ways that we judge. 527 01:01:47,190 --> 01:01:53,850 Yes and no. Within life by virtue of that honest insight. 528 01:01:53,850 --> 01:02:03,960 Now I think there are resources to begin to answer that challenge already within the perspective, try to position itself to really go fast here. 529 01:02:03,960 --> 01:02:12,210 But for now, you can say that even though the divine perspective doesn't can't determine within like any particular values for us, 530 01:02:12,210 --> 01:02:19,520 it can affect how we hold those values. It can demand that we hold them just as our values. 531 01:02:19,520 --> 01:02:26,730 That is, recognising their perspectival status, recognising their containment within a divine value in all of life. 532 01:02:26,730 --> 01:02:34,410 So we go back into differential valuing in a way that preserves in a certain sense that transcend transcendentally inside. 533 01:02:34,410 --> 01:02:43,470 In particular, we don't take values to come from some other world. We sometimes somehow hold the back of our minds the recognition that these values 534 01:02:43,470 --> 01:02:48,030 are just powers and that the values of others we oppose are also equally valid, 535 01:02:48,030 --> 01:02:53,400 the expressions of life and pro life. So it was Arthus drove three above. 536 01:02:53,400 --> 01:03:00,290 But he has discovered himself who can say this is by good and evil? 537 01:03:00,290 --> 01:03:02,340 OK. And we might think, by contrast, 538 01:03:02,340 --> 01:03:13,360 that the key point in holding opposite values is the refusal to step into the other viewpoint, the rejection of it altogether. 539 01:03:13,360 --> 01:03:17,380 I think there's a lot in favour of this perspective. 540 01:03:17,380 --> 01:03:30,810 First, as a resolution of the tension that I'm trying to bring out, but I think of nature often has a strong position. 541 01:03:30,810 --> 01:03:38,820 Nature often wants to draw from the transcendent affirmative perspective. 542 01:03:38,820 --> 01:03:42,480 He wants to draw not just, as it were, a way of having values. 543 01:03:42,480 --> 01:03:52,320 He wants to draw particular value content's conclusions about what we should value within life. 544 01:03:52,320 --> 01:04:00,330 And in order to get these value contents out of the value Mohsin, nature needs to specify in life as well to power. 545 01:04:00,330 --> 01:04:06,720 This lets him specify an ultimate point to life. An essential aim in its valuing. 546 01:04:06,720 --> 01:04:15,930 And this lets the moaners of deliver a value content that can be then be used as a standard in evaluating particular cases of life. 547 01:04:15,930 --> 01:04:20,700 So now particular values are not just my point of view. 548 01:04:20,700 --> 01:04:31,410 And the only virtue is not just recognising that status. Now values can be judged by how well they serve life's ultimate end, which is power. 549 01:04:31,410 --> 01:04:36,360 Life as well to power can be graded by the goal of power. 550 01:04:36,360 --> 01:04:45,120 Does a particular organism wield power effectively? What degree of power does a particular organism achieve? 551 01:04:45,120 --> 01:04:56,270 So the individual each of is able to take the point of view of life and make differential values differential judgements on its behalf. 552 01:04:56,270 --> 01:05:04,620 OK. Now. 553 01:05:04,620 --> 01:05:15,990 OK, so the last question I have, and I'm sorry I'm going over the last point that I have, is that Miccio taking this strong position, 554 01:05:15,990 --> 01:05:26,990 using this way of drawing out of the value monas, that God's eye perspective, particular value to conclusions. 555 01:05:26,990 --> 01:05:38,200 He does this in a way which strongly reintroduces bifurcating values. 556 01:05:38,200 --> 01:05:39,690 He does this in a way. 557 01:05:39,690 --> 01:05:47,310 See, the suggestion is one could do it in such a way that one gets that simply the kind of scalar values that I was talking about before. 558 01:05:47,310 --> 01:05:52,680 But that's not how nature often those are not often teaching extracts values 559 01:05:52,680 --> 01:06:00,150 from the value mechanism which have this or bifurcating and duellist character. 560 01:06:00,150 --> 01:06:09,180 And that is expressed in this argumentative locale in Nietzsche's accusation that some life is anti life. 561 01:06:09,180 --> 01:06:17,730 I think it's very telling that his arguments often take this form. This is where his duellist urge gets its place. 562 01:06:17,730 --> 01:06:29,610 Closest to my heart, I think, of his system. He claims that not just that there are some people who are stronger than others, you know, relatively. 563 01:06:29,610 --> 01:06:40,320 He claims that some individuals are sick in the sense that they are directed contrary to the essential end of life. 564 01:06:40,320 --> 01:06:46,860 Moreover, he claims that some people are so sick that they are actually anti life. 565 01:06:46,860 --> 01:06:53,980 So the ascetic ideal is hostile to life. And this is, I think, the way in which he puts the, as it were, 566 01:06:53,980 --> 01:07:02,970 the lesson that he extracts from the value of wisdom when he is most, as it were, value was to bifurcating. 567 01:07:02,970 --> 01:07:09,240 So, for example, I get home 047 But Christianity is criminality, par excellence. 568 01:07:09,240 --> 01:07:13,560 The crime against life. This is the only morality that has been taught so far. 569 01:07:13,560 --> 01:07:21,840 The morality of unselfish demonstrates a will to the end. It negates life as the most basic level. 570 01:07:21,840 --> 01:07:29,940 OK. I have I have a last section which is going to show how even this value dualism, 571 01:07:29,940 --> 01:08:04,250 which has some at times extracts from a value mechanism, is itself sort of reconciled or harmonised with the monism.